This was a fresh take on the tale of Dracula, written by a psychiatrist. It could have been very interesting, but I just found it... blah.
It's told in journal form, just like the original. However, this time it is told from the point of view of the "vampire" himself, who actually isn't a vampire, just your average sociopathic killer who likes a little blood as a side to his sex. I couldn't feel any sympathy for the main character. And usually I liked the villain in a well-written novel. The rest of the characters seemed very two-dimensional as well.
The cover blurb compares Anscombe's writing to a cross between Thomas Harris and Anne Rice. I couldn't see it. There was none of Rice's thinly disguised erotica and Anscombe didn't drum up nearly the amount of sympathy and fascination for Laszlo that Harris did for Lecter.
Was it a good premise? Yes. Could it have been carried out better? Yes. All in all, two stars out of five.
0 comments:
Post a Comment